The Nagorno-Karabakh
QuestionUN Reaffirms
the Sovereignty and
Territorial Integrity of Azerbaijan

by Yashar
T. Aliyev

Historical Background

In March
1992, a few months after the disintegration of the Soviet Union,
both Azerbaijan and Armenia joined the United Nations in one
of their first major efforts to integrate into the world community.
Above:Map showing Nagorno-Karabakh inside Azerbaijan and the territory
which Armenians are now occupying. Note the relationship of Nakhchivan
to Azerbaijan-separated from mainland Azerbaijan by a narrow
strip (46 km) of Armenian territory.

Both countries solemnly committed to uphold the purposes
and principles of the United Nations Charter, which includes
the peaceful settlement of disputes and the non-use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of
any State.

Since then,
more than six years have passed. But throughout all these years,
Armenia has been pursuing its territorial claims by implicitly
waging an undeclared war against Azerbaijan. Explicitly, they
have diligently sought the sympathy of the international community
by declaring that Armenia is a small country totally blockaded
by Azerbaijan which they blame for drawing them into the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict.

UN Security Council
Response
How has the UN Security Council responded to this situation,
given that it is recognized as the highest international neutral
broker to whom member States confer the primary responsibility
for the maintenance of international peace and security?

The UN Security Council condemned the Armenian invasion and occupation
of Azerbaijan's territories, making its position clear and unambiguous
by passing four resolutions, which addressed Armenian aggression-Resolutions
822, 853, 874, and 884, which included the following provisions:

(1) Expressing serious concern at the deterioration of relations
between Armenia and Azerbaijan and at the tensions between them
and continuation of the conflict in and around the Nagorno-Karabakh
region of the Azerbaijan Republic;

(2) Expressing
grave concern at the displacement of a large number of civilians
within the Azerbaijan Republic;

(3) Reaffirming
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and all
other States in the region;

(4) Reaffirming
the inviolability of international borders and the inadmissibility
of the use of force for the acquisition of territory.

Ultimately, the Security Council condemned the seizure and occupation
of the Kalbajar, Aghdam, Fuzuli, Zangilan districts and all other
occupied areas in Azerbaijan and demanded the immediate cessation
of all armed hostilities along with the unilateral withdrawal
of occupying forces from all those districts and areas. That
was 1993.

In May of 1994,
a cease-fire was established. Thus, the Armenian side partially
complied with some of the demands of the Security Council. But
at the same time, they have totally ignored the demand to withdraw
their forces from all occupied territories, despite the fact
that in accordance with the UN Charter, Armenia had agreed to
accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.

Continuing on their defiant route of non-compliance, in 1998
Armenia proceeded to conduct Presidential elections on occupied
Azerbaijan territories by arranging for mobile balloting boxes
to be delivered to the Kalbajar district of Azerbaijan to collect
votes cast by the regular army of the Republic of Armenia stationed
there. This fact was confirmed by the monitoring mission of the
Organization for the Security and Cooperation of Europe (OSCE)
and reflected in its report.

Such policy and conduct towards Azerbaijan is quite consistent,
given the fact that back in 1988, before the disintegration of
the Soviet Union, the Soviet Republic of Armenia adopted a resolution
in their parliament for the "Reunification of the Armenian
SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh." This resolution, by the way,
has never been rescinded. The title of the resolution itself
is based upon false premises because Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh
together have never been a single state entity.

The Alleged "Blockade"Under
such circumstances, Armenia's charge against Azerbaijan for its
so-called "blockade against Armenia" is a very skillful
Armenian subterfuge that has served them well, especially among
uninformed Americans. Obviously, severance of communications
and transport connections is an inevitable result of any military
conflict between two countries. There has never been, nor will
there ever be, a single state in the world that willfully provides
an aggressive neighbor with energy to enable it to continue its
expansionist plans. Imagine Nazi Germany complaining that the
Soviet Union had cut off its energy supplies. How absurd!

But in fact, there is no such thing as a blockade. One glance
at the world map will prove it. Armenia borders not only Azerbaijan
but also three other countries with which it is not at conflict-Iran,
Turkey and Georgia-and, therefore, can use, and has used their
transportation lines to receive the necessary goods that it bitterly
complains about. However, as a result of Armenian aggression
against Azerbaijan, the entire Nakhchivan region (the non-contiguous
part of Azerbaijan, which the Bolsheviks separated by a narrow
48 km strip of Armenian territory) is now totally cut off from
the mainland of Azerbaijan.

If Armenia had really been blockaded and totally cut off from
the outside world, the UN Security Council, of which the U.S.
is a permanent member, would have acted accordingly, imposing
sanctions on Azerbaijan. Instead, in January 1993, the President
of the Security Council made a statement on behalf of the members
of the Council expressing their deep concern at the devastating
effect of interruptions in the supply of goods and materials,
in particular energy supplies (for fuel and heating), to Armenia
and to the Nakhchivan region of Azerbaijan.

The Council called upon the governments in the region to allow
supplies to flow to both Armenia and Nakhchivan. Moreover, a
separate paragraph of Resolution 853, which was adopted later
(July 1993), reiterates the Council's call for restoration of
economic, transport and energy links in the region. The highest
international security organization, therefore, has more accurately
characterized the situation not as a blockade against Armenia
but as "interruptions in the supply of goods and materials"
between both sides.

Self-DeterminationWith
regard to Armenia's interpretation of the principle of "self-determination,"
it should be noted that Armenia became outspoken about this policy
only after expelling 200,000 Azerbaijanis from Armenia in 1988-1990.
Armenia had been home for these Azerbaijanis for centuries. Today,
no Azerbaijanis remain in Armenia. As a result, Armenia has become
essentially a mono-ethnic State, where practically no ethnic
minorities exist. Indeed, such a practice emulates Stalin: no
minorities - no problems.

Therefore, Armenia has no right whatsoever to advocate for the
right of self-determination within another country, especially
when it is pursuing unfounded territorial claims in that country-claims
which have been endorsed "de jure" by the Armenian
Parliament.

Incidentally, for generations, thousands of Azerbaijanis lived
in Armenia without enjoying any form of autonomy. The Armenian
population of the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, on the
other hand, enjoyed autonomy in the political, social and cultural
spheres. It was a Soviet-styled autonomy (perhaps incomplete
and imperfect), but nevertheless, an autonomy with freedom to
use the Armenian language in public (for example, the region's
legislature), educational (Stepanakert Pedagogical Institute),
cultural (Stepanakert Dramatic Theater) sectors as well as in
media.

Two further observations. There is no denying that the Nagorno-Karabakh
region is the Motherland of local Armenians whose ancestors were
settled there early in the 19th century when they were assisted
by Russians to immigrate from Persia and Turkey under, to use
the modern language, the Czarist Russia's "resettlement
program." Historic records and documents by a famous Russian
diplomat and writer Alexander Griboyedov confirm this deliberate
resettlement plan.

Consider the vital statistics of the Nagorno-Karabakh region,
which occupies the southeastern part of the Lesser Caucasus Mountains
and covers an area of 4,388 sq km, or 1,714 sq. miles. The territory
stretches for 120 km from north to south, and 35-60 km from east
to west. Before the conflict broke out in 1988, the population
of the region was recorded as 187,000. Of these, 137,200 were
Armenians (73.4%) and 47,400 Azerbaijanis (25.3%). There were
2,400 individuals of other nationalities (1.3%). For comparison,
Rhode Island covers 1,545 sq. miles and has a population of 990,225.

Nevertheless, a legitimate desire of Nagorno-Karabakh's Armenians
to improve all aspects of their lives and to strengthen their
ties with Armenia is understandable and met no resistance. However,
these aspirations do not entitle them to independence justified
by the right of "self-determination." In principle,
the Armenian people have already exercised their right for self-determination.
There is an independent state-the Republic of Armenia-which is
a member of the United Nations, the OSCE, the World Bank Institutions,
etc. Has there ever been a single nation having two separate
states (excluding those countries which have been historically
split such as Korea, Germany, Yemen, etc.)? Secondly, what is
the Azerbaijani population of Nagorno-Karabakh supposed to do?
Desist? Or are they to proceed along the same "logic"
of self-determination and create another Azerbaijani entity within
an "independent Nagorno-Karabakh?" Such an absurdity
leads only to deadlock or is the right to self-determination
only available to the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh?

The late member of the Russian Parliament (Duma), Galina Starovoitova
wondered about this problem and even asked the UN Secretary General
about it on CNN (May 5, 1993). During a live satellite television
conference Ms. Starovoitova asked: "Mr. Secretary General,
do you, the United Nations think-tanks, try to work out some
definitions, some pre-conditions and criteria for self-determination
of the emerging independent States? What is your opinion about
the possibility of recognizing Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent
state and thus stopping this war in Azerbaijan?"

The Secretary General replied: "Both Armenia and Azerbaijan
are members of the United Nations. Thus, we have recognized the
territorial integrity of both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh
is part of Azerbaijan, so the United Nations cannot promote the
independence of Nagorno-Karabakh." The Secretary General,
in his fundamental and comprehensive report entitled "Agenda
for Peace" emphasized that if every ethnic, religious or
linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no end to
the fragmentation that would take place throughout the world.
Peace, security and economic well being for all would become
ever more difficult to achieve. He further pointed out that the
principle of sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence
of States within the established international system, and the
principle of self-determination for peoples must not be permitted
to work against each other in the period ahead. And this, despite
the fact that both principles are of enormous value and importance.
This is a conceptual approach.

The UN General
Assembly's Response
In December 1998, at the 53rd session of the UN General Assembly,
Armenia and Azerbaijan tested their respective positions in relationship
to an agenda item on the cooperation between the United Nations
and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
OSCE is the 54-member international body, which has created a
special mechanism - the Minsk Group - to be responsible for finding
a resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

It was the Azerbaijani delegation, which amended the draft resolution
on this item with language reaffirming, in substance, the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh
is an integral part of Azerbaijan. In accordance with the rules
of procedure, this amendment was to have been voted upon first.

However, the
Armenian delegation tried to block the amendment by introducing
a motion not to take action on it. Such a procedural measure
is often employed for the sole intention of killing a proposal
simply by causing no action or no decision to be made about it.
In this case, the motion had to be voted upon before the amendment
was. However, when the vote was taken, Armenia lost. The General
Assembly rejected the motion to not act upon Azerbaijan's amendment.
There were 32 States which voted against the motion; Armenia
alone favored it. Subsequently, Azerbaijan's amendment was adopted
by a vote of 114 in favor to 1 against (Armenia).

It is very tempting to conclude these remarks on a "victorious"
note. But the truth is that there can be no "victory"
for either party in this bitter conflict. In 1993, following
the adoption of the first resolution (882) by the Security Council
on the Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict, the UK delegation made a
very astute observation: "The only realistic solution, given
United Nations and OSCE principles, is for continued Azerbaijani
sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh, with real autonomy for the
local Armenian population. But if parties choose instead to continue
the conflict, they are condemning themselves to years of economic
and social misery and forsaking the historic opportunities that
are offered by their hard-won independence."